9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal is against the Order dated 24.02.2015 of the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur. Certain proceedings were initiated against the appellant for demanding central excise duty of Rs. 4,62,126/- being duty payable on clearance of capital goods/scrap on which cenvat credit has been availed. On conclusion of the proceedings, the demand for the said amount was confirmed and appropriated against the amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt appeal. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the order-in-appeal dated 3.5.2011 dropped the demand of Rs. 2,58,025/- and as such, the present claim is consequential one. He further submits that they have sent a fax on 19.09.2011 staking their claim for refund of this amount and that the communication should be treated as a claim and as such, the refund should be sanctioned. 3. Ld. AR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact that the present claim for refund arose consequent on the order dated 3.5.2011 of the Commissioner (Appeals). The refund claim in proper form was filed by the appellant on 23.02.2013. I find that the appellant's plea that their communication dated 19.09.2011 addressed to the Superintendent of Central Excise, in connection with the recovery proceedings of arrears cannot be accepted. First ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
